MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602136859 · doi:10.1155/2017/8381653

Thin Air Resulting in High Pressure: Mountain Sickness and Hypoxia-Induced Pulmonary Hypertension

2017· review· en· W2602136859 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jan Grimminger, Manuel J. Richter, Khodr Tello, Natascha Sommer, Henning Gall, Hossein Ardeschir Ghofrani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMaladaptationHypoxia (environmental)Effects of high altitude on humansMedicinePulmonary hypertensionAltitude (triangle)Oxygen pressureIntensive care medicineAltitude sicknessInternal medicineOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With rising altitude the partial pressure of oxygen falls. This phenomenon leads to hypobaric hypoxia at high altitude. Since more than 140 million people permanently live at heights above 2500 m and more than 35 million travel to these heights each year, understanding the mechanisms resulting in acute or chronic maladaptation of the human body to these circumstances is crucial. This review summarizes current knowledge of the body's acute response to these circumstances, possible complications and their treatment, and health care issues resulting from long-term exposure to high altitude. It furthermore describes the characteristic mechanisms of adaptation to life in hypobaric hypoxia expressed by the three major ethnic groups permanently dwelling at high altitude. We additionally summarize current knowledge regarding possible treatment options for hypoxia-induced pulmonary hypertension by reviewing in vitro, rodent, and human studies in this area of research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207